ConCourt hears ANC prioritised party in Phala Phala vote

The EFF is challenging the decision by the National Assembly not to adopt the findings of the Independent Panel Report into the saga, led by Judge Sandile Ngcobo. 

The report found prima facie evidence suggesting President Cyril Ramaphosa had a case to answer about the millions of US dollars discovered at his Phala Phala farm in Limpopo. 

When the Section 89 panel report on the Phala Phala matter was presented to Parliament in December 2022, ANC MPs largely voted against adopting the report.

The National Assembly’s decision to vote against the adoption of the report effectively blocked the process that could have led to the establishment of an impeachment inquiry against President Ramaphosa.  

Nkosazana Dlamini-Zuma, Mervyn Dirks and Supra Mahumapelo were the only MPs from the ANC who defied the party line by voting in favour of the adoption of the report. 

EFF legal counsel Kameel Premhid argued that the MPs’ constitutional obligations should have taken precedence.

 “If there is a space in which the ANC’s arguments that political instruction in a matter like this is permissible, then the ANC is confronted by what this court said in …a clash between an individual MPs’ political allegiance to their party and their constitutional obligation in terms of their oath of office, then it is their oath that must succeed.

“And we’ll say on the application of that UDM principle to these facts, not only has the ANC told you that they took the reasons that they did for political reasons, which is in conflict with UDM [judgment], it’s also that to the extent that the ANC relies on those reasons, those reasons have already been found to be unlawful," argued Premhid.

But Justice Rammaka Mathopo told Premhid that he did not appreciate the insinuation that ANC MPs were unduly influenced, as this may amount to insulting the MPs' intelligence.

"Let's explore the votes at the National Assembly. Prior to the seventh Parliament, the ANC was a majority party. Hence, it amassed enough votes to vote down the report.

“What I fail to appreciate is the suggestion that the MPs, when voting against the report, were influenced. In other words, it was unlawfully dictated upon them.

“Which means they did not vote according to their conscience.

“Where do we find on the papers the facts that demonstrate that suggestion?” asked Mathopo.

Premhid argued that the National Assembly’s actions were inappropriate.

"It is not open to the National Assembly to consider the report and simply disregard it," he said.

He added: "There is binding authority which tells you that prima facie evidence exists on a spectrum and that the objective to find prima facie evidence for the purpose of a motion is not to subject the initial sifting mechanism done by the panel to the same threshold as actual guilt.

It’s something lower than that, and to the extent that the panel engaged with sufficient information and prima facie evidence, the panel discharged its responsibility accordingly, and that’s why that reason, insofar as the principle reason in front of you is concerned, that’s no reason at all," Premhid told the apex court.

ALSO READ